Somehow, Timothy must think that when laws are broken the only thing the criminal has to do to make amends is to put back what he stole - that there should be no consequences for the act of violating the law. Perhaps we should ask Mr. Doodad Pro for his opinion on this transgression.

As to his comment on the US Chamber of Commerce and Fox (Fox? Are they running for something? Oh, that's right, in the minds of the Obamabots, Fox is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican Party and the Tea Party and that guy from Saudi Arabia - not to mention the fact that they give voice to that insane Glenn Beck) do you have any proof of your claim, or are you just accepting as Gospel the words of Obama (peace be upon him) because, as we all know, if he says it, it must be true.

If foreign groups wanted to influence American elections with injections of cash, funneling that money through the Chamber of Commerce and Fox is a damned poor investment strategy. You'd think they'd take some lessons from the Obama 2008 Campaign if they wanted some bang for their buck.

Bill, as you know, the Obama campaign returned the money when they learned the money was foreign. Please explain how they could return the money earlier than that.

As to the prepaid cards, you offer zero proof that any of the money came from foreign sources. Further, tthe donor has to fill out a form and swear that their address and identity is correct. If the cards were dsiabled, you offer no proof that the Obama campaign did it. You have nothing.

@Timothy - Keep trying. Turning off the security features is what made it difficult to substantiate, combined with the FEC post-election refusing to investigate because BHO didn't take public campaign money. So he opts out of routine security features and excapes FEC scrutiny because he opted out of the public campaign finance system. Transparency!

Don't look now, Timothy, but even the NYT isn't buying the Obama Chamber of Commerce story. Now if you can't keep the Times on your side...

And the efforts of the Obama campaign to disable credit card verification were deliberate and malicious. That they gave it back is immaterial - the crime is in deliberately and knowingly accepting the money.

It must be very difficult to be an Obama apologist these days. I almost feel sorry for them (not really, I'm nearly overdoing on the schadenfreude).

Prof. Jacobson, I would posit a different motivation than obliviousness; this is a very calculated move by the Democrats. See Politico's smear piece on Congressman Issa, "Darrell Issa Has Eye on Subpeona Team," here: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38697.html.

Obama's team is merely mimicing a tactic that was mastered by the Clintons in the 1990s -- that is, accuse the other side of doing something first, and you then have carte blanche to do it yourself (albiet here, the Dems already commited the crimes in the 2008 campaign). Obama's team is trying to turn foreign donations into a partisan mudfest, in order to discredit the congressional investigations that they already know are coming. Fearing they are going to lose control of the House, and knowing the coming investigations may reveal their illegal behavior, they are trying to inoculate themselves. After accusing the Republicans of the same kind of illegalities in which they engaged in the 2008 campaign, they can now respond to the coming congressional investigations as if they are merely a partisan tit-for-tat smear attack, rather than evidence of deliberate wrongdoing.

I think we can be safe in predicting that the New York Times and Washington Post will present these stories in a fashion that turns the story away from a criminal investigation towards a childish argument of, “yes, but you did it first!” As the folks at the Daily Kos were so kind to point out in their current Googlebomb campaign, all these “reputable journalists” need to do is enforce the meme in the headline and the opening paragraphs of the story, as that is all most people really read anyway.

Exactly - the crime is in "deliberately and knowingly" accepting the money. You have done nothing to show anything either deliberate or knowing.

The donation system is set up to accept the payment, then determine whether it is legal. And if it's not, they send it back. That's what the statute requires, and that's just what both the Obama and McCain campaign did.

Just ask the McCain campaign about the donations they received from "Jesus II" and the like. When they discovered they were illegal, they sent them back, as the law required.

Turfman, I don't know what you're crowing about, but here is what the New York Times says:

"For at least 44 years, it has been illegal for foreign corporations, countries and individuals to make political contributions in the United States for any election, either directly or indirectly. It is even against the law to solicit such contributions. But in this Wild West year of political money, that longstanding ban is being set aside. The United States Chamber of Commerce — one of the biggest advertisers in midterm races around the country — is actively soliciting foreign money, and government enforcers seem to be doing nothing to stop it.'

"But a closer examination shows that there is little evidence that what the chamber does in collecting overseas dues is improper or even unusual, according to both liberal and conservative election-law lawyers and campaign finance documents.

In fact, the controversy over the Chamber of Commerce financing may say more about the Washington spin cycle — where an Internet blog posting can be quickly picked up by like-minded groups and become political fodder for the president himself — than it does about the vagaries of campaign finance."

There's plenty more if you read the story in its entirety.

How would the Obama campaign determine if a contribution made by credit card were legal if they knowingly and deliberately disabled the authentication protocols? Why, if I didn't know better, I'd say they were trying to pull a fast one. Perhaps you should contact the Attorney General's office to ask that an investigation be started to clear Mr. Obama and his campaign of any wrongdoing. Since they are not interested in prosecuting the Black Panthers in Philadelphia they have some extra time on their hands.

I guess at some point you'll learn to read the parts of the New York Times that Drudge or Fox doesn't spoonfeed you.

When that happens, maybe you'll actually read what it says at :

"Because the United States Chamber is organized as a 501(c)(6) business league under the federal tax code, it does not have to disclose its donors, so the full extent of foreign influence on its political agenda is unknown. But Tuesday’s report sheds light on how it raises money abroad. Its affiliate in Abu Dhabi, for example, the American Chamber of Commerce, says it has more than 450 corporate and individual members in the United Arab Emirates who pay as much as $8,500 a year to join...

The possible commingling of secret foreign money into these groups raises fresh questions about whether they are violating both the letter and spirit of the campaign finance laws. The Federal Election Commission, which has been rendered toothless by its Republican members, should be investigating possible outright violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act by foreign companies and the chamber."

I wonder, turfman - just why do you think it is that the Republicans are getting so much money from the Arabs, anyway? Hmmm.

Contrary to popular belief, I read the New York Times article at The New York Times website, which, in case you didn't know, is written in English - the preferred language of Conservatives. That's an unforced error on your part - for all you know I was lead there by something at DailyKos - I never mentioned Drudge and you were the one that brought up Fox (for some unknown reason). This will be included in my evaluation report to Mr. Soros.

Your quotation is not in the direct citation that I linked to at the New York Times, nor have you bothered to cite your reference. I have a pet peeve about people that don't cite their references. Shame on you.

Anyway, since you can't be bothered to check the reference that I cited, I'll help you out.

"White House officials acknowledged Friday that they had no specific evidence to indicate that the chamber had used money from foreign entities to finance political attack ads.

“The president was not suggesting any illegality,” Bob Bauer, the White House counsel, said. Instead, he said Mr. Obama’s reference to the chamber was meant to draw attention to the inadequacies of campaign disclosure laws in allowing groups to spend large amounts of money on politics without disclosing their donors."

In other words, its a canard, a baseless accusation meant to score cheap political points. How do I know? Since Obama is the President of the United States and the Attorney General of the United States serves at the president's pleasure, one has to conclude that if there were any hint of illegality, we would be reading of FBI raids upon the offices of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce as part of an ongoing criminal investigation into suspected violations of Federal Election Campaign Act. Until we do, its just more cheap rhetoric that spools by on TOTUS.

You told me, directly, that the New York Times did not support my position. I quoted to you, directly, a statement by the New York Times that specifically supported my position. Are you telling me that the quote I gave you is not from the New York Times?

And to your last point, since you seem to know canards so well, I assume you already know that the Federal Election Commission, an independent body, investigates suspected violations of the FECA, not the Attorney General.

And since the Republicans have veto power over the Commission, you can bring your concerns to your buddies about why the Arabs and Chinese are supporting Republican candidates.

I cited a news report in the New York Times, not an editorial, which would indicate if the newspaper had taken a position on the matter. I know it must be tough in this day and age, but newspapers are supposed to report the news from a neutral vantage point - biased neither to the right nor to the left - and leave their opinions to the editorial page. I linked to the specific news article that I was referencing - you did not. I do not know if what you quoted appeared in the Times or Pravda (not that there is much of a difference) because you did not cite your quotation. I am not going to do your work for you. If you are successful in citing your reference, then we arrive at a point where there are conflicting accounts in news reports.

I am not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV, so if I happened to misstate the proper enforcement authority for the FECA, you'll have to excuse me. In any case, I am unaware that there is any government authority, federal, state, local or otherwise, that is investigating the allegations that Barack Obama is making.

Mr. Obama can either put up or shut up. For the love of God, man, he is the freakin' President of the United States - perhaps he should start acting like one instead of running off at the mouth like a two-bit city councilor.

Furthermore, I am disinterested in your distraction about Republicans, Arabs, Chinese, etc., etc., They are not at issue here. Stick to the subject.

Contributors

These Are Only MY Opinions

In case you were wondering, all opinions and views expressed on this blog are my own, and do not represent the views of any employer or other organization.

Terms of Use

By using this blog, you agree that all original content on this blog is copyright of William A. Jacobson. You may quote from my posts provided that you clearly identify me as the author, link to the original post or home address of this blog, and do not charge for access to the website, publication or other media in which the quote appears. Although comments are moderated, I accept no responsibility for what other people say, and I reserve the right to block or remove any comment for any reason or no reason. Any e-mails sent to me are subject to publication, and any disputes regarding this site will be litigated exclusively in the jurisidiction in which I reside at the time of the dispute.